Post-Keynesian Ideas For A Crisis That Conventional Remedies Cannot Resolve

Yearly Archives: 2013

In India – at least a while ago – they were many tickers trading on the stock exchanges with no income and in some cases with no office whatsoever!

Why would anyone incorporate such a thing? For two – illegal – reasons: first the IPO of the company gets the money in – which makes the owners rich – and the second way is to manipulate the price of the stock to fool more investors. The owners would trade among themselves and fool trend followers to buy the stock.

Cryptocurrencies are like that – with the difference being that they are equity liabilities of unincorporated and unregistered enterprises trading in unregulated markets. The deceit lies in marketing them as some sort of currency and inducing people to trade in them as if it were some currency.

If that is the case, what is the national accounts description (like the 2008 SNA) of such a thing? First, there is no incorporation so we have to treat them as quasi-corporations as national accountants do.

Sec 4.42 of the 2008 SNA has a description of quasi-corporations. That is for general economic activity but here I use the concept to describe cryptocurrencies. The difference here is that unlike the quasi-corporations, the cryptocurrency quasi-corp has no income!

The other reason for thinking of a quasi-corporation is that one usually sees money as a liability of an institution, so we need to think of cryptocurrencies as a liability of some economic unit.

So how does the balance sheet of this cryptocurrency quasi-corp look like at various stages?

Let us say that the cryptocurrency quasi-corporation raises $100mn at the “IPO”:

Assets

Liabilities and Net Worth

Bank Deposits = +$100mn

Equities Issued = +$100mn Net Worth = $0

Note: Here the symbol $ is for the United States dollar and not for any cryptocurrency such as the bitcoin.

Now, the owners of the cryptocurrency quasi-corporation make a “withdrawal of equity”. That is, whatever money is received in ordinary currency is transferred to the owner’s personal account. After this, the balance sheet of the quasi-corporation looks like:

Assets

Liabilities and Net Worth

Bank Deposits = $0

Equities Issued = +$100mn Net Worth = −$100mn

which has a counterpart that the owners’ net worth rises by $100mn (as a result of the transfer of payment received in dollars to the owners’ account).

Once the “cryptocurrency” starts trading in unregulated markets, the price of a unit rises or falls, so let’s say it rises 10 times the IPO price. At the time,

Assets

Liabilities and Net Worth

Bank Deposits = $0

Equities Issued = +$1bn Net Worth = −$1bn

Of course, there is nothing wrong with the net worth of a corporation going negative – as may sometimes happen in times when there is a stock market boom, even for the corporate sector of a nation as a whole.

In this case however, this cryptocurrency quasi-corporation has no income whatsoever. In fact, it is using your services and hence making a loss which is covered by issuing more equities!

There is a concept of mining in cryptocurrency which is the most interesting part.

So suppose users “mine” cryptocurrency worth $100mn by providing services to the quasi-corporation, the balance sheet of the quasi-corporation will look like (assuming the price of the cryptocurrency hasn’t changed):

Assets

Liabilities and Net Worth

Bank Deposits = $0

Equities Issued = +$1.1bn Net Worth = −$1.1bn

In the language of flows, the cryptocurrency quasi-corporation has: an operating surplus of minus $100mn, a balance of primary income of minus $100mn, entrepreneurial income of minus $100mn, disposable income of minus $100mn, and, saving (undistributed profits) of minus $100mn.

This has a counterpart in the financial account as a net borrowing of $100mn by issuance of equities worth $100mn.

(For the above refer to the tables in Annex 2 – The Sequence of Accounts of the SNA).

The ultimate user of this intermediate consumption is another firm but the trick here is that its costs are reduced because of the issuance of cryptocurrencies for which it is not liable at all.

In the case where you own some cryptocurrency and pay for some pizza using it, it is a transaction between you and the pizza maker and shouldn’t affect the accounts of the quasi-corporation except the change in the name of ownership of the cryptocurrency – like a transaction using bank deposits. Here it is more like buying a pizza using Apple stocks with Apple Inc. acting as the settlement agent.

Of course, I repeat – currencies are not like equities but in this case, cryptocurrencies have been marketed as currencies whereas they are more like stock market equities but traded in unregulated markets.

The cryptocurrencies are thus a more sophisticated version of stocks of companies trading in markets with no income and no office.

An excellent discussion on wage-led economic growth is a paper by Marc Lavoie and Engelbert Stockhammer titled Wage-led Growth: Concept, Theories And Policies which appears in the recently released book Wage-Led Growth: An Equitable Strategy For Economic Recovery (Palgrave Macmillan book page)

From the article:

… The advocacy of a wage-led economic strategy has a long history. It has been articulated in reformist visions within the labour movement and was discussed under the heading of ‘underconsumption’ in 19th century economics. Famous underconsumptionists in the history of economic thought include Malthus, Sismondi and Hobson.1

Underconsumptionist ideas got a boost from their endorsement by Keynes, when he proposed his theory of effective demand, arguing that excessive saving rates, relative to deficient investment rates, were at the core of depressed economies. Underconsumption theories can also be related to the problems of the realization of profit, as discussed by Marx and subsequently by various Marxist authors such as Baran and Sweezy (1966), while other authors, closely related to Kalecki (1971), such as Steindl (1952) and Bhaduri (1986), have brought together the theory of effective demand and the problem of the realization of profit. On this basis, the benefits of a wage-led growth strategy has been resurrected and formalized by several Kaleckian or post-Keynesian authors, starting with Rowthorn (1981), Taylor (1983) and Dutt (1987). Taylor (1988) showed early on that when emerging countries had enough capacity to adjust, a wage-led growth strategy made sense. More recently, the policy-oriented concept of a wage-led growth strategy was prominently used by UNCTAD (2010, 2011).

A standard objection to the consideration of the underconsumption thesis or the consideration of problems related to the lack of effective demand is that long-run growth – the trend rate of growth, also called the potential growth or the natural rate of growth – is ultimately determined by supply-side factors, such as the growth rate of the labour force and the growth rate of labour productivity. While adepts of the so-called ‘endogenous growth theory’ will recognize that investment in human capital or research and development may end up modifying the potential growth rate, they usually set aside the idea that actual growth rates could have an influence on potential growth rates. Yet, since the advent of the global financial crisis, government agencies and central banks in many industrialized countries have lowered their forecasts of long-run real growth, thus demonstrating clearly that weak aggregate demand does have an impact on potential growth. As Dray and Thirlwall (2011, p. 466) recall, ‘it makes little economic sense to think of growth as supply constrained if, within limits, demand can create its own supply’. This explains why we shall focus on the income distribution determinants of aggregate demand, paying less attention to the supply-side factors…

1See Bleaney (1976) for a historical account of underconsumptionist theories.

But some on internet discussion groups seem to have interpreted it as a failure of the underconsumption theory.

Before I say what I want to say, some preliminaries: In Keynesian theories, there are two things – propensity to consume and propensity to save. A lot of people erroneously think that these add to 1. I will go further and say that a theory which considers the interaction of stocks and flows with a notion of a propensity to save will end up with paradoxes. Rather saving – household saving in particular should be seen as a result of a model which traverses in historical time between one configuration of stocks and flows to another. With consumption depending on income and wealth, the notion of propensity to consume is more appropriate than the somewhat inferior “propensity” to save. Or one may say that the propensity to save is a derived concept.

What is the underconsumption theory? It can be conjectured in various ways. One is to say that the propensity to consume out of wages is higher than the propensity to consume out of interest income, dividends and capital gains. Another is to say that low income earners have a higher propensity to consume out of wages than high income earners. This is then given a policy angle and the underconsumptionists then claim (rightly in my opinion) that a better distribution of national income will lead to stronger effect on growth because low income earners will consume more and have multiplier effects on output – in contrast to “supply-side” policies.

Back to the Federal Reserve paper. Some seem to have interpreted it as saying that it is a blow to the theory of underconsumption citing low rate of saving for high income earners. There are several things wrong with this. The fact that high-income earners spent a lot in some periods doesn’t mean it is a better policy than aiming for a better distribution of income, especially when the former is more unpredictable because of the unpredictability of stock-markets, while the latter is more direct. Although this point is more important, the citing of low saving of high-income earners in some periods following high capital gains should be dismissed. Low saving was not the result of a low “propensity to save” – which is a derived concept but the result of higher consumption due to rise in wealth than due to a rise in “propensity to consume” by high-income earners.

So if household consumption is given by

C = α1·YD + α2·W-1

where C is consumption, YD is disposable income, and W is wealth. α1 and α2 are the propensities to consume out of income and wealth, respectively. The subscript -1 indicates it is the value for the previous period. The wealth term also includes capital gains at the end of previous period.

Saving is given by

S = YD – C

Now, as per national accounts, income doesn’t include capital gains, although taxes on capital gains may reduce YD but let’s ignore that. This doesn’t mean capital gains are irrelevant, because consumption behaviour depends on capital gains. So the rate of saving S/YD is given by

S/YD = (1 – α1) – α2·W-1/YD

which may hit zero or even turn negative if there is a large rise in W-1 because of capital gains even if the parameters α1 and α2 have not changed. So for example α1 may be something like 0.5 and yet the rate of saving may be negative.

In other words, the data of the 90s doesn’t disprove the fact that low-income earners’ propensity to consume out of income is higher than high-income earners – it just shows that some high income earners’ saving may have gone negative because of higher consumption due to capital gains in some periods.

So what if there is a fair distribution of income? Since low-income earners have a higher propensity to consume, less inequality will lead to a higher output and national income than otherwise.

Earlier, I had two posts on this but now these have been merged into one.

Chartalists again!

This blog post The fiscal role of the KfW – Part 1 by Bill Mitchell of Australia makes the most exorbitant claims about an institution called KfW and the government of Germany.

Bill Mitchell claims:

It is a major reason why the public debt ratio in Germany is 80 per cent rather than close to 100 per cent. It is a major reason why the federal deficit has been reduced without scorching the German economy. It is a story about smoke-and-mirrors accounting, German-style.

This is a bizarre claim. For Mitchell’s claim on the deficit to be valid, KfW should be a net borrower each year of a big size. For the claim on the public debt, KfW’s net indebtedness should be large. If Mitchell means anything other than this when saying “fiscal role”, what is it?

Unfortunately for Mitchell, KfW is a net lender to the private sector and the rest of the world sector in the flow sense and a net creditor in the stock sense.

First, Germany’s 2012 GDP was €2.666tn (source: OECD.StatExtracts) and 1% of that is about €26.66bn and 20% of GDP is €533bn.

Let’s get an order of magnitude of the numbers. The net lending of KfW would identically be its undistributed profits minus capital expenditure. KfW doesn’t distribute profits (page 10 of the report) and so its undistributed profits is equal to its profits. Page 66 of the financial report says 2012 profits is €2.38bn and capital expenditure is negligible (page 72).

Hence KfW is a net lender and not a net borrower!

In other words, Prof. Mitchell seems to present a story in which the German government is using KfW as a tool to have a higher budget deficit than what it shows in its own books but it is in fact the opposite. This is because the combined entity KfW + Government of Germany has a lower deficit than the deficit of the government of Germany.

Moving to the balance sheet, its size is about €511bn – also quoted by Mitchell. But the size is not the main thing here. It is whether KfW is a net debtor or not. The balance sheet (page 68) says that equity is about €20.69bn. Of course, the item equity doesn’t by itself say anything about net indebtedness – an economic unit can possibly have a large net worth (in this case with no stock market shares issued, the same as equity) and yet be a net debtor if it holds a large proportion of its assets in non-financial form. The balance sheet however suggests that this is not the case – property, plant and equipment and intangible assets are small compared to other numbers.

Hence KfW is a net creditor and nothing like an institution with net indebtedness of about €533bn (100% minus 80% of GDP, see the quote at the start of this post.)

This was for 2012 but for other years just mirror the analysis – different numbers but of order of magnitude like these and nothing like what Prof. Mitchell interprets them to be. Supposedly, according to him, KfW

It spends, I mean lends millions each year at very low rates … pumps millions of Euros in the domestic economy and the export sector.

I suppose it subsidies lending and the fiscal part is how these subsidies are calculated and not the amount of lending which Mitchell seems to present by saying “pumps millions of Euros”. These lending flows are not like a government expenditure flow.

And spending is not lending!

In other words, the subsidy provided indirectly by the government via KfW. This can perhaps be estimated by the profits of a domestic bank of similar size or by some similar sort of comparison – and estimating what profits would have been otherwise. After this one would compare it to various numbers in the government budget. This however in my opinion will be nothing like what Mitchell makes it out to be.

Further Bill Mitchell makes another claim:

There are three reasons to look closely at the KfW:

1. It played a role in the Deutsche Telekom (so-called) privatisation, which helped the German government slip out of an embarassing excessive deficit procedure in 2004. Sleight-of-hand is the best description for what happened.

…

Except that there was no sleight-of-hand.

In national accounts such as in the 2008 SNA, items such as privatization appear in the financial account and perhaps sometimes in the “other changes in assets accounts”. This ECB Convergence Report June 2013, page 68, box 6 says:

a reduction in ﬁnancial assets (as a result of privatisations for instance) tends to reduce the borrowing requirement as it generates cash, while leaving the deﬁcit unchanged.

In other words, the privatization of Deutsche Telekom has no effect on the deficit. It reduces the public sector borrowing requirement and the public debt, but the private sector net worth doesn’t change at the time of the transaction. So it is not as if the private sector holds more of financial assets as a result of the privatization. It may see holding gains but that is a different matter.

At any rate, what would have been the alternative to bring the gross public debt down to meet the debt-deficit-criteria? Attempt to deflate German domestic demand and consequently demand and output in the rest of the Euro Area?

Also, even if one counts the effect of privatization in the deficit, it would have Germany’s deficit from 4.3% to 4.2%. As a commentator in Billy Blog writes:

Take for instance the purchase in November 2003, which according to you was done as a result of the pressure from the EU in reducing the deficit. The KfW purchased about 200 Million stocks, wow, sounds impressive… except the actual value of those stocks was only about 2.5 Billion €. The german deficit in 2003 was 89 Billion € or 4.2% of the GDP, so without the KwF buy it would have been… 4.3% (if you round up generously). The KfW buys and sells had no practical relevance for Germany either going below or above the deficit rule of the Growth and Stability Pact – the sums involved were simply not big enough for that.

Thus, the entire story about the supposed fiscal role of the KfW is incorrect.

Pilkington’s errors are simple accounting errors and misunderstanding of flow-of-funds. Pilkington seems to assume the same logic of Mitchell. According to him:

The trick is that this borrowing doesn’t appear on the government balance sheet so, given a level of aggregate net expenditure equal to,

[Government Deficit + KfW Lending],

the Federal deficit is lower than it would otherwise be if the government had to foot the bill for all this expenditure.

First, the government would not have to “foot the bill for this expenditure” if it were to lend directly to the private sector on its books because the lending would not be “expenditure” but a loan by the government and it would be making a profit on it. The loan would not add to the budget balance even if the government were to directly lend. The expenditure would be for the firm using the proceeds of the loan and it is not public expenditure. Pilkington seems to confuse income/expenditure flows with financial flows. Or in the language of the 1993/2008 SNA confuses current accounts with the financial account.

In fact the profits if the government were to lend directly would reduce the federal deficit by a bit, not increase as claimed by Pilkington.

Further Pilkington seems to assume that another counter-factual in this case is less borrowing by the private sector and hence lesser private expenditure. No! this counter factual is the private sector borrowing from other banks – i.e, private banks. Why would German firms find difficulty in borrowing if they happened to show their creditworthiness to KfW?

Also, as I highlighted in the previous post, a proxy for the subsidy would be the profit of the bank of a similar size minus the actual profit of KfW. It is nothing like Mitchell’s rabble-rouse.

In this New Economic Perspectivespost Randy Wray and Eric Tymoigne confuse accounting identities with behaviour.

In a context, the bloggers claim:

… Only a government deficit induced by fiscal policy leads to net saving.

where “net saving” is saving net of investment.

This posits a one-way causality of the sectoral balances accounting identity S − I = G − T from the right to the left.

This is inaccurate because of the endogeneity of the budget deficit which Wray himself is aware of but nonetheless confuses. This is because private expenditure may lead to a change in output and tax flows which may change the sign of the private sector balance (S minus I)

Suppose the private sector is in deficit and the government budget in surplus and the household sector drastically reduces its propensity to consume. This will lead to a fall in output and income and hence reduce tax flows to the government even if fiscal policy hasn’t changed (government expenditure and tax rate decisions haven’t changed) and the private sector’s balance can turn into a surplus from a deficit position.

That’s what endogeneity of the budget balance is all about. [Some government expenditure may change because of social transfers but the magnitude of this may be much lower than other things involved such as the private sector balance or changes.]

Second, it ignores the external sector.

Moreover the authors make another claim:

Monetary policy can change the composition of net saving by buying financial assets in the domestic sector in exchange for government currency, but it cannot change the size of net saving, i.e. the net accumulation of financial assets.

Cannot change the size of private sector saving net of investment?

Suppose the private sector is in surplus and interest rates are high. The central bank reduces interest rates drastically to induce the private sector’s expenditure to rise. If there is a large rise in investment for example, the private sector can go into a position of a deficit. It is true that the private sector may want to target a small surplus but this isn’t the case always and the private sector can remain in a deficit for long – not necessarily due to fiscal policy.

In the opposite case/scenario, starting from a case of a private sector deficit, suppose the central bank drastically raises interest rates to the point of causing the economy to go into a recession. The private sector balance may rise as people save more and output will fall, leading to lower tax outflows to the government and hence changing the private sector balance.

Some humility is needed by a few people who incorrectly seem to think they know how the world works with confused language such as “taxes aren’t revenue”!

Central bank asset purchases or LSAPs increase the stock of money aggregates compared to the counterfactual when there is no QE. Is there an excess of money?

These are two different things.

The notion of “excess money” is usually associated with Monetarism where the supposed “excess” is eliminated by rise in prices of goods and services. Excess money causes prices rise as much to reduce the value of money to reconcile whatever economic agents want to hold so that money demand = money supply where supply is given exogenously.

Which of course is quite wrong.

The reason it is wrong is that while – as argued in the previous posts – QE causes the stock of money to rise, there is no excess because prices and perhaps even quantities in financial markets (which is different from the market for goods and services) adjust so that the stock of money is still demand determined.

Of course that is not to say that the stock of money is the same as the counterfactual – i.e., the stock of money in a QE world is different from what it would have been in the absence of QE. So the stock of money is not exogenously given and adjusts to the demand for money as argued in the previous post and this demand depends on various things such as expected returns on imperfect substitutes – which QE influences.

In the markets for goods and services, there’s hardly an effect because prices are set by producers according to their costs.

Of course there needs to be a few qualifications – in the market for primary products, myths and speculation can lead to a rise in prices – such as the price of oil and this can have inflationary effects but the world we live in is not one in primary products and the original Monetarist idea highlighted at the start of this article is still misleading.

Of course none of this is implies that LSAP/QE has less effect on prices of financial markets – it can indeed cause some unwanted booms.

Another thing is that I mentioned in the previous blog post that supply of money influences demand but doesn’t determine it. Does that mean that the central bank has a “control” on the stock of the money within some limits? Well, not really. Control means influencing whatever is said to be under control to move in the desired direction and this is not always so. For example if the central bank were to behave like what the Bank of England was experimenting in the 70s under Monetarists’ influence, and sell bonds in large quantities in the financial markets, economic units – such as the non-banking sector may expect bond prices to fall and desire to increase their holding of money (as in deposits). This will lead them to sell the bonds to the banking sector which is prepared to buy the bonds acting as dealers in the bond markets. So the outcome may be opposite of the objective with which the central bank started with.

Starting in mid-December 2008 when the FOMC lowered its funds-rate target to near zero with payment of interest on bank reserves, the textbook reserves-money multiplier framework became relevant for the determination of the money stock. The reason is that the Fed’s instrument then became its asset portfolio, the left side of its balance sheet, which determined the monetary base, the right side of its balance sheet. As a result, from December 2008 onward, the nominal (dollar) money stock was determined independently of the demand for real money. Although the reserves-money multiplier increased because of the increased demand by banks for excess reserves, the Fed retained control of M2 growth. Even if banks hold onto increases in excess reserves, the money stock increases one-for-one with open market purchases. (2012:237) (emphasis added)

This post is inspired by the nice comment by JKH in the same post.

JKH says:

Excellent post.

I think Hetzel is wrong though.

What is at work in QE is better described as a money duplication process rather than a money multiplier process. It’s entirely different.

The correlation between base changes and M2 changes during QE has nothing to do with the reserve ratio calculation that is part of the money multiplier math.

It has to do with the fact that non-banks were the ultimate source for most of the assets acquired by the Fed under QE. To the degree that’s the case, there is a 1:1 duplication of reserve expansion and M2 expansion at the point of transaction origin. Non-bank bond sellers basically convert their bonds to M2 at source.

Subsequent commercial bank balance sheet changes may change the one-to-oneness that appeared at origination, but that also has nothing to do with money multiplier dynamics.

So in total this has nothing to do with a standard money multiplier argument. The two should not be confused.

I have a few more things to add on Hetzel.

When the Federal Reserve buys assets such as US Treasuries and agency debt and mortgage-backed securities from the private sector, it increases the stock of money aggregates such as M1 – as most of the ultimate sellers are non-banks, even though the Federal Reserve purchases the bonds via reverse auctions from primary dealers.

Now whether the money multiplier story works or not (it doesn’t!), it superficially looks as if the Federal Reserve is determining the stock of money – supporting Hetzel’s view – again superficially.

But does it?

In Post-Keynesian monetary theory, economists say that the stock of money is “demand-determined” and Hetzel’s arguments seems to be against this view. However what Hetzel forgets is that while the Federal Reserve influences the stock of money, it is still demand-determined. This is because money-demand depends on agents’ portfolio preferences. If agents have “excess” stock of money, they may reflux this by reducing their loans toward the banking system – just like Post-Keynesians claim. The Federal Reserve QE Education page New York Fed 101: The Federal Reserve’s $600 Billion Treasury Purchase Program (Called by some QE or QE2) itself says so:

In fact since QE leads to higher asset prices, economic units may in fact borrow more funds to invest (read: speculate) in the stock markets.

Also note that “money-demand” is dependent on various things such as expected returns on substitutes. To the first approximation we may say that the stock of money was determined by the Federal Reserve since it has an eye on the monetary aggregates (although not targeting in the Monetarist sense). But once the process is set in motion, it then becomes endogenous because of behaviour of economic units.

Only in the limited case of settlement balances can we say that a monetary aggregate (monetary base or MB in this case) was set by the central bank.

The correct way of seeing this is via using Wynne Godley’s asset allocation model. In this what the variable Md is still decided by household behaviour – which depends on portfolio preferences, wealth, income and expected returns on all assets. LSAP works by reducing the supply of long-term bonds and hence reducing long-term yields via the “preferred-habitat” theory and hence increasing demand for other assets via imperfect asset substitution and changing their prices.

This itself has an influence on money-demand (because money-demand also depends on expectations of returns of other assets) but the amount of asset purchases by the Fed doesn’t determine the stock of money at any point in time.

Hence Hetzel is both wrong by appealing to the money multiplier mechanism and even if he hadn’t his other point about the stock of money being supply-determined is incorrect.

You can read Nick Edmonds’ blog on how this works – he has the most precise way of describing QE/LSAP.

Described as “Award-winning documentary about Keynes by Professor Mark Blaug, which received a Silver Medal at the New York Film and Television Festival circa 1988.” on the University Of Cambridge page of the video:

James Tobin’s papers are very interesting. I have a special liking for him even though he sometimes said strange things and used a lot of neoclassical analysis. His asset allocation theory is one of the most interesting things in monetary economics.

The paper is also noted and analysed in Louis-Philippe Rochon’s book Credit, Money, and Production: An Alternative Post-Keynesian Approach (p 124 – )

In this paper Tobin takes Milton Friedman to task by constructing what he calls an “ultra-Keynesian” model which he describes as

In the ultra-Keynesian model, changes in the money supply are a passive response to income changes generated, via the multiplier mechanism, by autonomous investment and government expenditure.

(note: multiplier as in expenditure multiplier and not “money multiplier”).

For some strange reason Tobin says he doesn’t believe in this model but shows how Friedman’s empirical findings (the latter’s assertion that “changes in the supply of money are the principal cause of changes in money income Y”) are all wrong especially his assertion about leads and lags. This was also noted by Nicholas Kaldor in his 1970 article The New Monetarism reprinted in his Collected Essays, Vol 6 as Chapter 1.

… Suppose the initiating change is a decision of some firms to increase their inventories, financed by borrowing. The first impact is to cause some other firms whose sales have increased unexpectedly to incur some involuntary disinvestment. It is only when that is made good by increased orders that productive activity is expanded; any such expansion will cause higher wage outlays which in turn may involve further borrowing. The ultimate effects on income involve further changes in productive activity arising from the expenditure generated by additional incomes. There is every reason to supposing, therefore, that the rise in the “money supply” should precede the rise in income – irrespective of whether the money-increase was a cause or an effect.

So much for the various tests using Econometrics by Friedman – these don’t prove anything.

Again in his 1980 paper Monetarism and UK Monetary Policy, Kaldor states:

… the change in the money supply may be the consequence, not the cause, of the change in the money incomes (and prices), and that the mere existence of time-lag – that changes in the money supply precede changes in money incomes, is not in itself sufficient to settle the question of causality – one cannot rule out the possibility of an event A which occurred subsequent to B being nevertheless the cause of B (the simplest analogy is the rumblings of a volcano which frequently precede an eruption).

Back to Tobin. He says the following from what his “ultra-Keynesian” model:

… The main point of the exercise can be made by assuming that the monetary authority provides the bank reserves as necessary to keep r constant… The monetary authority responds to the “needs of trade”. With the help of the monetary authority, banks are able and willing to meet the fluctuating need of their borrowing customers for credit and of their depositors of money.

… The financial operations of the government and the banks are as follows: The government and the monetary authority divided the increase in debt … between “high-powered money” and bonds in such a manner as to keep the interest rate on target… the monetary authority provides enough new high-powered money to meet increased reserve requirements and any new demand for excess reserves. The remainder of the increase in public debt … takes form of bonds and is just enough to satisfy the demands of the banks and the public.

An important observation made by Tobin is that because the stock of money rises following a fiscal expansion due to a rise in income, an ultra-Keynesian

… would not even be surprised if some observers of the accelerated pace of monetary expansion in the wake of a tax cut conclude that monetary rather than fiscal policy caused the boom.

Tobin shows how “every single piece of observed evidence that Friedman reports on timing is consistent with the timing implications of the ultra-Keynesian model”.

This is quite important. Somehow most observers cannot understand the role of fiscal policy and there is almost total attention given to “what the Federal Reserve is doing or going to do” by economic commentators and “experts” of Wall Street with most comments on fiscal policy being that fiscal deficit should be somehow reduced. “We are all Keynesians now” is quite misleading because most economic commentators are heavily distorted by the quantity theory of money even though sometimes they claim to not believe in Monetarism.